SCOTUS upholds college Affirmative Action

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plus, careful review of the decision indicates that the door is left open for future challenges. As a practical matter, though, the Court will soon have a 7-2 liberal majority (Thomas and Kennedy will retire soon, I think). So it seems like Justice Marshall's view that affirmative action will endure for centuries more is, in fact, accurate.

Didn't Kennedy write this opinion? And didn't he based his decision on deference to the school's stated need for diversity -- which is not at all a strict scrutiny analysis. But I'm just going on what I read in a news account, not the actual opinion.

It could be argued that strict scrutiny was only given lip service. And the point I was trying to make is that with a 7-2 liberal majority coming soon (Kennedy is unpredictable on these issues), there will be zero chance of the Court upholding challenges to affirmative action. So there it is.

This is true unless anti-AA rules are passed by states. This, IMO, is a huge flaw. AA was a half-assed attempt at some level of reparations. One that was watered down by the inclusion of white women, and then more watered down by the SCOTUS's deference to state legislatures on the issue. The whole point of AA is to protect against inherent racism/bias from the majority. If most state electorates are populated by the majority, or those that have historically been culturally accepted by the majority (e.g. certain Asian groups, Jews, and wealthy immigrants of all races) then AA would always lose.

Did you read that on Vox?

[Anonymous]

We are all blacks now. Race is self reported and a social construct and is fluid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Terrible decisision. This shows us how awful Scalias death( or maybe murder) was. It doesn't really matter though. You can admit URMs with lower grades and SATs who don't deserve admission all you want, and you can even give them top jobs. However, at the end of the day, they will be outperformed by those who are intellectually superior to them. It's sad that minorities want "equality", but then demand special prviliagrs. It actually says something pretty bad about URMs if they can't succeed without affirmative action.College admissions should be based solely on GPA, SAT, ECs, and recommendations. At least the SCOTUS got the important decision on illegal immigration right.

How do you know? Fisher had low grades and SAT scores. She was average. Black students with better grades and test scores did not get in and white students with worse did. So - your point?

College admissions should not be solely based on grades and SAT scores. Diversity means all kinds of things. You are the one that is close minded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrible decisision. This shows us how awful Scalias death( or maybe murder) was. It doesn't really matter though. You can admit URMs with lower grades and SATs who don't deserve admission all you want, and you can even give them top jobs. However, at the end of the day, they will be outperformed by those who are intellectually superior to them. It's sad that minorities want "equality", but then demand special prviliagrs. It actually says something pretty bad about URMs if they can't succeed without affirmative action.College admissions should be based solely on GPA, SAT, ECs, and recommendations. At least the SCOTUS got the important decision on illegal immigration right.

How do you know? Fisher had low grades and SAT scores. She was average. Black students with better grades and test scores did not get in and white students with worse did. So - your point?

College admissions should not be solely based on grades and SAT scores. Diversity means all kinds of things. You are the one that is close minded.

While I'm generally not for affirmative action as practiced today, the Fisher case was a poor one for the anti-AA folks to hitch their wagon to precisely for the reasons you pointed out.

[Anonymous]

AA primarily benefits middle/upper class blacks -- and not necessarily African Americans. Poor African Americans (and poor whites, and other races) are still screwed. Where I work, most of the "blacks" are not even from the US; they are from various Caribbean islands or from Europe, but they still count as "black," and most come from fairly affluent backgrounds. These are the real beneficiaries of AA.

I would like to see AA improved to address these shortcomings, but since the most politically connected black folks are middle/upper middle class -- the main beneficiaries of AA -- there is little interest in fixing anything.

"Legacy" status is a red herring. There are a handful of super rich white kids that get in due to legacy, and their parents donations, but this is probably not even 1/10th of a percent of white students, and is obviously not significant enough to affect average SAT and GPA scores for their schools.

If large numbers of unqualified whites got in because of legacy status, then white SAT and GPA scores would be consistently low for the schools that they are admitted to. But school profiles consistently show blacks (and sometimes latinos) as having significantly lower scores than other races. This indicates that AA is far more of a factor than legacy status.

[Anonymous]

There should be an income limit for Affirmative Action. Barack Obama's children don't need AA. Cap it so that lower-middle class, working class and poor minorities can get a seat at the table.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrible decisision. This shows us how awful Scalias death( or maybe murder) was. It doesn't really matter though. You can admit URMs with lower grades and SATs who don't deserve admission all you want, and you can even give them top jobs. However, at the end of the day, they will be outperformed by those who are intellectually superior to them. It's sad that minorities want "equality", but then demand special prviliagrs. It actually says something pretty bad about URMs if they can't succeed without affirmative action.College admissions should be based solely on GPA, SAT, ECs, and recommendations. At least the SCOTUS got the important decision on illegal immigration right.

But imagine what would happen w/o AAction. There will be almost no blacks in top 200 colleges. Maybe SCOTUS thought URMs could use extra help.

Well now we won't have to find out, racist troll. Lol!

I doubt it will help much though. It hasn't in the past. So, nothing new here. At some point, you gotta get yourself going without mama holding your hand, bud.

It's helped my family quite a bit--and I consider it a small step towards compensating my family for the stolen labor of my ancestors. I can guarantee you that we have a higher HHI than you, and live in a nicer neighborhood (one of the best). Despite our excellent public schools, our children attend one of the best private schools in DC, with all the EC bells and whistles. Oh, my children will also attend better universities than your children. I'm also positive that AA didn't take the bar and pass it on the first try for me either.

One more thing: You cannot possibly make me feel bad about being the recipient of AA at some point or another in my life. I would feel bad about being the recipient of unearned white privilege (you, Fisher and the rest of your ilk) who cannot even get into UT-Austin (!) WITH legacy status (you know, the type of AA action whites like you like and defend). UT didn't even admit its first Black student until the mid-1950s. Fisher should feel embarrassed by her sheer mediocrity...to say nothing of her Peppermint Patty looks.

cool story sis. hope it made you feel better. i particularly loved the bolded part. it must be nice being a beneficiary of your ancestors and the US govt. what was your contribution to your success?

Thanks, I feel great! Hmmm...my contribution to my success: Ivy undergrad and law school (with numerous academic honors). Partnership at big law (after working my ass off in a less than hospitable environment) and married to a successful entrepreneur with similar academic credentials. Any AA I have received is my due. Please and thank you.

Isn't if funny that people on here expect you to be ashamed? They are not ashamed because they got into college as a legacy or because they got a job based on connections. As I have said on this board and to my own children many times, if people are concerned about how and why you got where you are, that is their problem - not yours. The most important thing is to take advantage of the opportunity. Let them wonder how you got it.

I agree as long as that holds true for everyone. No assumptions people aren't qualified or hit a job or promoted because of AA, and equally no assumptions that whits privilege was part of the reason. Treat everyone equally, let their work speak for itself and don't waste time being divisive looking for another person's presumed flaws. I'm one of the earlier posters and I don't at all think anyone should be ashamed of benefitting from AA. I just take issue with the notion of payback for what happened generations back. I'm a first generation American, and like do very many Americans had no role whatsoever in slavery. My ancestors were suffering their own atrocities at various times in other parts of the world. It just seems unproductive to keep looking backwards, and to think that one should benefit today from atrocities that happened up their ancestors. Sadly, when you look at the most successful slave revolt (Haiti) resulting in a substantial empowerment of former slaves, things did not turn out so well in the end looking at current day Haiti. Not at all to say that that was the only trajectory possible at all, but it seems pretty speculative to assume that U.S. Slaves' descendants would have been better off financially under other circumstances.

You should just say "black people need to get over it." Do you understand that the what happened "generations back" has had a significant impact on the decedents of the people effected? Black people would get over it if it didn't have an impact. Guess what? It did, and it continues too.

Do you think its a simple coincidence that black with college education unemployment rates = white high school drop out unemployment? To take it even further: Employment success of blacks with degrees from elite colleges = whites from less selective schools. Guess those blacks need to "work harder."

Did you know that blacks/brown are still arrested and incarcerated more for similar or less severe crimes than whites? That schools with majority black and brown students generally have lower quality teachers? Teachers in general have lower overall expectations of black and brown students? That black and brown kids are suspended and disciplined in K-12 more than whites and others for similar or less offenses? They still pay higher interest rates on loans than whites and other races with similar or better credit? The evidence here is pretty large, so we can do this for a while.

Does racism have to mean a whip and white hood and burning cross in order for you to acknowledge that it exists and still negatively impacts POC-- primarily those whose ancestors are from here? If you want to remove policies such as AA that attempt to correct for historical atrocities, then would you pledge to help fight for policies that help eliminate the ones from today? Also, would you support economic policy that could help restore the loss of wealth and opportunities which were mainly made available to majority of AAs over the last 60 years?

Historical amnesia is convenient to those who it most benefits.

Actually, it's understanding a wide enough scope of world history to understand that many, many people have been oppressed or otherwise suffered atrocities, and that African Americans are not at all alone in that. Not by a long shot. And I wouldn't blame all of the above issues on racism. Yes, it exists, absolutely no doubt (and African Americans are as likely as anyone else to be racist in my experience). But to blame the above fully on racism is incorrect. Who forces African American girls to have multiple children out of wedlock at a disproportional rate, with all of the associated and well-studied consequences? That's not white privilege at work. It's a mix of factors but don't pretend you are African Americans are the only people who have suffered.

You need to focus: We're talking about Blacks in these United States (and the history that created thie AA program). The Japanese who were interned on US soil have received reparations. Native Americans have received reparations in the form of treaties and laws that recognize their sovereignty. Have African Americans received reparations? Nope. We haven't even received an official apology from the U.S. Government. I wouldn't be where I am today if I only focused on how my ancestors were treated. Unfortunately for you though, I will also never forget how they were treated. I'm not interested in playing your game.

It's not a game. Current US residents are the people who suffer when one group received preferential treatment. So that includes all of us (which by the way is most Americans) whose ancestors are NOT from the US. And do you think third and fourth generation descendants of interned citizens would receive reparations? You've got to be kidding. I'm all for true, meaningful diversity, of culture, SES, religion, politics and, yes, race. But this idea that African Americans are unique in their history of (or present day) suffering is just so narrow minded. Do you actually think most of the world's populations, and their descendants living here in the US, lived in egalitarian communities where slavery, feudalism, lack of voting and property rights, and physical danger to certSin groups didn't exist? Have you been to China? Any countries in Africa? The Middle East? India? Anywhere? And you think that all of these people, now in the US, owe you something today?

Np-
I'm not 100% certain who is arguing with who, but if the above exchange is "black lady lawyer" vs " first gen American"....
BLL- you need to step up your game. The above poster is eating your lunch.

[Anonymous]

Yea but who cares about this. Paper argument. This decision is not based on income.

[Anonymous]

Np-
I'm not 100% certain who is arguing with who, but if the above exchange is "black lady lawyer" vs " first gen American"....
BLL- you need to step up your game. The above poster is eating your lunch.

too funny.

shows what happens if you rely on AActions to get you thru the law school. BLL has NO game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I post this over and over. When selective colleges look to fill their classes they try and construct a class with diverse students for two reasons: one is that they cannot have the best and brightest without being inclusive. Not all the bright and talented people are white or asian and (2) if they don't have a diverse student body they cannot offer a world class education. Being truly educated means that you know about the world and who inhabits it, not just a small slice of humanity. The idea that if your child gets in and mine who has higher scores and a higher GPA from a similar school does not get in, does not bother me because grades and scores are very narrow measures of achievement. Your child might also offer the college many things that mine does not, e.g. first hand knowledge about living in a racist community or playing the french horn.This has been said again and again. A top 20 college could easily fill its class with straight A and perfect to near perfect test takers, but they choose not too. They choose to look at the whole student and judge what this student will bring to their community. There is nothing discriminatory about this. No one is entitled to a place because of any particular trait or achievement.

+1000

Sadly, however, there are groups and individuals who will feel their achievements, box-checking, whatever, entitle them to a place at an elite school. No amount of reasoning, common sense or fact will convince them otherwise. You almost get the feeling that these folks need the name/status more than they want or care about what any particular university can offer them or what they might offer the university or their classmates.

Thankfully, sanity reigned and the court didn't buy the h-shit Fisher (and the anti-AA folks backing her) were trying to shovel. And admissions offices don't seem keen to buy it either. Perfect scores, GPA and all those other brag-able stats are rewarded with school awards, merit scholarships, and hopefully personal satisfaction. With all the private tutoring, coaching, prepping and cramming going on these days, they shouldn't buy you any more than that. The top colleges are rightly looking for that something special you'll add to the mix, as they should be.

No way being a guy in a dress is equivalent to perfect SAT scores. This is just PC nonsense! Diversity, schmersity, I want my architect, my surgeon, etc. to be the guy or woman with the highest grades on the standardized test. And it's also preposterous to think that the teaching enivironment in a lab science will be in any way enhanced by having people with a bizarre grab bag of outside interests -- juggling, weaving, etc. The teaching environment will be enhanced by having smart people with good lab skills.

[Anonymous]

It only takes 10 years for students from Asian and some immigrants from Africa bubble up to the top of the class. I cannot understand why American blacks still rely on Aff Actions. Asians get no benefit, African blacks are heavily benefited by this. American blacks, seems to me, are a non-factor.

[Anonymous]

I don't want my surgeon to necessarily have the highest SAT. I want them to be good, have sound judgment, a steady hand and the ability to adapt on the fly. SAT does not measure this.

[Anonymous]

To the non factor commenter above, this comment says way more about you than anyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrible decisision. This shows us how awful Scalias death( or maybe murder) was. It doesn't really matter though. You can admit URMs with lower grades and SATs who don't deserve admission all you want, and you can even give them top jobs. However, at the end of the day, they will be outperformed by those who are intellectually superior to them. It's sad that minorities want "equality", but then demand special prviliagrs. It actually says something pretty bad about URMs if they can't succeed without affirmative action.College admissions should be based solely on GPA, SAT, ECs, and recommendations. At least the SCOTUS got the important decision on illegal immigration right.

But imagine what would happen w/o AAction. There will be almost no blacks in top 200 colleges. Maybe SCOTUS thought URMs could use extra help.

Well now we won't have to find out, racist troll. Lol!

I doubt it will help much though. It hasn't in the past. So, nothing new here. At some point, you gotta get yourself going without mama holding your hand, bud.

It's helped my family quite a bit--and I consider it a small step towards compensating my family for the stolen labor of my ancestors. I can guarantee you that we have a higher HHI than you, and live in a nicer neighborhood (one of the best). Despite our excellent public schools, our children attend one of the best private schools in DC, with all the EC bells and whistles. Oh, my children will also attend better universities than your children. I'm also positive that AA didn't take the bar and pass it on the first try for me either.

One more thing: You cannot possibly make me feel bad about being the recipient of AA at some point or another in my life. I would feel bad about being the recipient of unearned white privilege (you, Fisher and the rest of your ilk) who cannot even get into UT-Austin (!) WITH legacy status (you know, the type of AA action whites like you like and defend). UT didn't even admit its first Black student until the mid-1950s. Fisher should feel embarrassed by her sheer mediocrity...to say nothing of her Peppermint Patty looks.

You don't need to feel bad. Like lottery winners, enjoy what you got. Let me guess, you now live in a white predominant community and your kids go to schools predominantly white. That's what AA has achieved so far: help the already better off minorities achieve greater personal gains. change the black culture? no way! The winners can't wait to escape the black community. You can boast all you've achieved, but you can never prove you can achieve the same without AA, thus your college degree and your kids' will always be discounted by many.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I post this over and over. When selective colleges look to fill their classes they try and construct a class with diverse students for two reasons: one is that they cannot have the best and brightest without being inclusive. Not all the bright and talented people are white or asian and (2) if they don't have a diverse student body they cannot offer a world class education. Being truly educated means that you know about the world and who inhabits it, not just a small slice of humanity. The idea that if your child gets in and mine who has higher scores and a higher GPA from a similar school does not get in, does not bother me because grades and scores are very narrow measures of achievement. Your child might also offer the college many things that mine does not, e.g. first hand knowledge about living in a racist community or playing the french horn.This has been said again and again. A top 20 college could easily fill its class with straight A and perfect to near perfect test takers, but they choose not too. They choose to look at the whole student and judge what this student will bring to their community. There is nothing discriminatory about this. No one is entitled to a place because of any particular trait or achievement.

+1000

Sadly, however, there are groups and individuals who will feel their achievements, box-checking, whatever, entitle them to a place at an elite school. No amount of reasoning, common sense or fact will convince them otherwise. You almost get the feeling that these folks need the name/status more than they want or care about what any particular university can offer them or what they might offer the university or their classmates.

Thankfully, sanity reigned and the court didn't buy the h-shit Fisher (and the anti-AA folks backing her) were trying to shovel. And admissions offices don't seem keen to buy it either. Perfect scores, GPA and all those other brag-able stats are rewarded with school awards, merit scholarships, and hopefully personal satisfaction. With all the private tutoring, coaching, prepping and cramming going on these days, they shouldn't buy you any more than that. The top colleges are rightly looking for that something special you'll add to the mix, as they should be.

No way being a guy in a dress is equivalent to perfect SAT scores. This is just PC nonsense! Diversity, schmersity, I want my architect, my surgeon, etc. to be the guy or woman with the highest grades on the standardized test. And it's also preposterous to think that the teaching enivironment in a lab science will be in any way enhanced by having people with a bizarre grab bag of outside interests -- juggling, weaving, etc. The teaching environment will be enhanced by having smart people with good lab skills.

PP, I never said this, but perhaps did not make my point as clearly as I could have. There is obviously a certain level of achievement (re: GPA, SAT scores) that a college applicant will have to attain to even be in the conversation as the top schools. But once you're at that point, it's the other factors that should matter more -- not a few GPA or SAT points.

And as an earlier poster noted, in my doctor's I want a competent person with sound judgment and a good bedside manner, not the one with the highest SAT score.